BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Julian Frattini

Julian Frattini contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Assets in Software Engineering: What are they after all?

During the development and maintenance of software-intensive products or services, we depend on various artefacts. Some of those artefacts, we deem central to the feasibility of a project and the product's final quality. Typically, these central artefacts are referred to as assets. However, despite their central role in the software development process, little thought is yet invested into what eventually characterises as an asset, often resulting in many terms and underlying concepts being mixed and used inconsistently. A precise terminology of assets and related concepts, such as asset degradation, are crucial for setting up a new generation of cost-effective software engineering practices. In this position paper, we critically reflect upon the notion of assets in software engineering. As a starting point, we define the terminology and concepts of assets and extend the reasoning behind them. We explore assets' characteristics and discuss what asset degradation is as well as its various types and the implications that asset degradation might bring for the planning, realisation, and evolution of software-intensive products and services over time. We aspire to contribute to a more standardised definition of assets in software engineering and foster research endeavours and their practical dissemination in a common, more unified direction.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Automatic Detection of Causality in Requirement Artifacts: the CiRA Approach

System behavior is often expressed by causal relations in requirements (e.g., If event 1, then event 2). Automatically extracting this embedded causal knowledge supports not only reasoning about requirements dependencies, but also various automated engineering tasks such as seamless derivation of test cases. However, causality extraction from natural language is still an open research challenge as existing approaches fail to extract causality with reasonable performance. We understand causality extraction from requirements as a two-step problem: First, we need to detect if requirements have causal properties or not. Second, we need to understand and extract their causal relations. At present, though, we lack knowledge about the form and complexity of causality in requirements, which is necessary to develop a suitable approach addressing these two problems. We conduct an exploratory case study with 14,983 sentences from 53 requirements documents originating from 18 different domains and shed light on the form and complexity of causality in requirements. Based on our findings, we develop a tool-supported approach for causality detection (CiRA). This constitutes a first step towards causality extraction from NL requirements. We report on a case study and the resulting tool-supported approach for causality detection in requirements. Our case study corroborates, among other things, that causality is, in fact, a widely used linguistic pattern to describe system behavior, as about a third of the analyzed sentences are causal. We further demonstrate that our tool CiRA achieves a macro-F1 score of 82 % on real word data and that it outperforms related approaches with an average gain of 11.06 % in macro-Recall and 11.43 % in macro-Precision. Finally, we disclose our open data sets as well as our tool to foster the discourse on the automatic detection of causality in the RE community.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Causality in Requirements Artifacts: Prevalence, Detection, and Impact

Background: Causal relations in natural language (NL) requirements convey strong, semantic information. Automatically extracting such causal information enables multiple use cases, such as test case generation, but it also requires to reliably detect causal relations in the first place. Currently, this is still a cumbersome task as causality in NL requirements is still barely understood and, thus, barely detectable. Objective: In our empirically informed research, we aim at better understanding the notion of causality and supporting the automatic extraction of causal relations in NL requirements. Method: In a first case study, we investigate 14.983 sentences from 53 requirements documents to understand the extent and form in which causality occurs. Second, we present and evaluate a tool-supported approach, called CiRA, for causality detection. We conclude with a second case study where we demonstrate the applicability of our tool and investigate the impact of causality on NL requirements. Results: The first case study shows that causality constitutes around 28% of all NL requirements sentences. We then demonstrate that our detection tool achieves a macro-F1 score of 82% on real-world data and that it outperforms related approaches with an average gain of 11.06% in macro-Recall and 11.43% in macro-Precision. Finally, our second case study corroborates the positive correlations of causality with features of NL requirements. Conclusion: The results strengthen our confidence in the eligibility of causal relations for downstream reuse, while our tool and publicly available data constitute a first step in the ongoing endeavors of utilizing causality in RE and beyond.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access